morning to attend our press conference. we are officially endorsing now. -- adjourning now. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> ray lahood talks about the sequestered budget cuts. then tom donahue on the federal budget. and emily miller talks about washington, d.c.'s gun by furloughing employees and

posing some air traffic control towers and smaller cities. lawmakers have until march 1 until automatic spending cuts -- spending cuts are expected to take effect. this is a little less than an hour. >> i remember all of you from roll call. [laughter]you asked me all the3se dumb questions. [laughter]

>> i just want to say that it is my pleasure, and clearly yours, to have with me today the secretary of transportation, ray lahood, who is here to speak with you about the impacts of sequester, if it comes to pass, on the american travel industry. and as we've talked about a lot, the indiscriminate, deep cuts will affect everyone, really, in america, and industries. and secretary lahood is here to discuss one aspect of that with you and to take some questions. and afterwards, i'll be here to take questions on other issues. i just want to remind you that we're on a slightly constrained time schedule. we have the president's meeting with national governors -- democratic governors, and then also the pool spray with the prime minister of japan. with that, i turn it over to secretary lahood. >> sequester will be a very --

will have a very serious impact on the transportation services that are critical to the traveling public and to the nation's economy. at dot, we will need to cut nearly a billion dollars, which will affect dozens of our programs. over $600 million of these cuts will need to come from the federal aviation administration, the agency that controls and manages our nation's skies. as a result of these cuts, the vast majority of faa's nearly 47,000 employees will be furloughed for approximately one day per pay period until the end of the fiscal year, and in some cases it could be as many as two days. today we are sharing more details with our unions and with industry so they can start planning for serious impacts of sequester. here is what these automatic cuts are going to mean for the traveling public.

obviously, as always, safety is our top priority, and we will never allow the amount of air travel we can handle safely to take off and land, which means travelers should expect delays. flights to major cities like new york, chicago, and san francisco and others could experience delays of up to 90 minutes during peak hours because we have fewer controllers on staff. delays in these major airports will ripple across the country. cuts to budgets mean preventative maintenance and quick repair of runway equipment might not be possible, which could lead to more delays. and once airlines see the potential impact of these furloughs, we expect that they will change their schedules and cancel flights. so we are beginning today discussions with our unions to likely close more than 100 air traffic control towers at

airports with fewer than 150,000 flight operations per year. and we're talking about places like boca raton, florida, joplin, missouri, hilton head, south carolina, and san marcos, texas. the list of the towers -- the list of potential towers that are to be closed, or elimination of midnight shifts, is posted on our website as i'm speaking now. so you can see the entire list there. we're also beginning discussions with unions to eliminate midnight shifts in over 60 towers across the country. the closures will impact services for commercial, general aviation, and military aircraft. this will delay travelers and delay the critical goods and services that communities across the country need. these are harmful cuts with real-world consequences that will cost jobs and hurt our economy. the president has put forward a

solution to avoid these cuts. and as a former member of congress of 14 years, i urge my former colleagues to address this issue when they get back next monday, and to work on a long-term, balanced solution to our deficit challenges. and with that, i'll be happy to answer some questions. >> mr. secretary, these cuts and these cutbacks that you're talking about, are these the type of things that the public will start seeing on march 2nd? or is this going to be a longer rollout? >> we think the rollout will take from march 1st to april 1st, and they'll begin to see the activity in the layoffs and the delays probably beginning around april 1st. >> are there any other ways to avoid the cuts other than those you have outlined? there are some republicans who say you could mitigate these effects by doing other things in your budget system. >> look, the sequester doesn't

allow for moving money around. it just does not. and it's very clear. and the idea that we can move money from one pot, say like aip, which is the airport improvement fund -- which in most places has a pretty good chunk of money -- sequester doesn't allow that. look, this is very painful for us because it involves our employees, but it's going to be very painful for the flying public. as a former member of congress, i heard complaints all the time from my constituents when their flights were delayed or when their flights were cancelled, and this is going to have an enormous impact. >> could you clarify why the flights will be delayed? is it a matter of mileage between flights? >> because we're going to reduce the number of controllers, which will reduce their ability to guide planes in and out of airports. >> so more distance between planes -- landing distance -- >> well, it's going to reduce the number of controllers, which will reduce their opportunity to

guide the same number of planes that they would ordinarily do at full capacity. >> how about tsa implications? >> tsa is under homeland security. we're not -- that's a different lane. >> your total budget at dot is, what, $70-some billion? >> $70 billion, in round numbers, yes -- 55,000 employees. >> so help the public understand a billion dollars cut. you've got a big budget. can't you find some other way to cut that without telling air traffic controllers to stay home? >> well, we're doing that. we're looking at every contract, and we're going -- our lawyers are looking at every contract to see what penalties we would have to pay as we begin to cut or adjust contracts. we're looking at everything possible, and everything possible that's legal, we will do. but this has to be a part of it. dot has 55,000 employees. the largest number of those

employees are at the faa, and the largest number of those employees are controllers and they're all over the country. there has to be some impact in order to save a billion dollars. a billion dollars is a lot of money. >> but let's be clear -- it's less than 2 percent of your budget. >> it's a lot of money, jonathan. and where i come from, which is central illinois, a billion dollars is a lot of money. and it's very difficult when you have this kind of -- the number of employees that we have guiding planes in and out of airports to do anything except look at everything, and that's what we've done. >> are you just basically throwing out whatever sounds like the most severe consequence in order to ratchet up pressure? and are you having discussions with some of your former colleagues up on the hill to warn them of what's coming? >> the answer is, yes, we are having discussions with members of congress. we have briefed staff people on

the respective committees -- commerce committee in the senate, t&i committee in the house. and they know the impact and they know why we're doing this. they know a lot about these numbers we're dealing with because we work with them on a regular basis. and the idea that we're just doing this to create some kind of a horrific scare tactic is nonsense. we are required to cut a billion dollars, and if more than half of our employees are at the faa, the faa -- there has to be some impact. that's the reason we're announcing what we're announcing. >> mr. secretary, what sort of impact will these delays have on the airline industries and their financials, specifically? do you have any forecast for what that will do? >> well, we're talking to the airline industry today -- a4a, which represents all of the airlines, we're talking to them. we'll be probably talking to individual airlines. we're making this announcement

today, and obviously we have to work through with them what impact this will have. but there's no question they're going to have to restrict some of the flights that they currently -- are on their books to fly in the next -- within the next 30 days. >> will they be required to compensate passengers for delays? >> you'll have to talk to them about that. >> i mean, isn't that part of u.s. law that they have to do that? where does this figure into that? >> you'll have to talk to the airlines about that. yes. >> just to be clear, have the airlines specifically said they will definitely have to choose >> you know, we just started to talk to the airlines today. they're hearing about this. we're on the phone -- our folks are on the phone with them right now. we're on the phone with the airlines, we're on the phone with our unions. we're sending an email to all of our employees so everybody gets the same information at the same time. >> so they have said it's a possibility this is one of the things that -- >> well, we believe that it's not possible to continue the same schedules with less people.

>> and then on the issue of safety, how can you guarantee that safety standards will be met if you're scaling back? >> because that's what we're in the business of. that's what we do every day. our people get up every day and think about safety, and we think about it in a way that maybe nobody else thinks about it -- certainly common, ordinary citizens. i've said many, many times people -- thousands of people today boarded planes, buses, got in their cars, and the thing they didn't think about was safety. we do. and we're not -- we will never take a back seat when it comes to safety. we just absolutely will not. and that's the reason, back to jonathan's question, we're looking at everything. we're not just looking at furlough days. we're looking at every contract. our lawyers are looking at every contract to see what impact it has for us to try and find some savings in those areas.

>> mr. secretary, why is the alarm being raised now? why not three, four months ago? why now? >> because we're within 30 days of sequester. i mean, sequester really begins march 1st, but we have a 30-day window here to prepare people. and we've been working with our colleagues here at the white house and omb for a number of months on what impact this is going to have. and now is the time to do it. >> mr. secretary -- >> jim. >> yesterday, at the airlines for america briefing, the airline lobby actually said that there would be no effect, that they suspected there would be no significant impact on the air travel system. where is the disconnect between what you're saying and what the airlines are saying? >> i don't think they have the information we're presenting to them today. i don't know what they used for that, jim. but it's -- i think when they see the kind of cutbacks that are going to be made at some of these towers, they're going to have no choice but to really

look at the fact that there are going to be delays, and there are going to have to be some cutbacks on some of these flights. >> let me follow up on safety, if i could. what is going to be the effect on faa inspectors? are you also going to furlough some of them that are doing the who are reviewing the safety of these planes? >> everything will be impacted in terms of the controllers and contracts. when it comes to our safety programs, there will be no compromise. and those are things that we're looking at, but we want to make sure that those people that are, for example, doing the work on the 787, doing the work on inspecting planes, no compromise when it comes to safety. >> mr. secretary -- thank you, sir. mr. secretary, as far as international carriers are concerned, are you in touch with international carriers, if international passengers are going to be affected from this? because whatever happens in washington, whole world is affected, people around the

globe. >> yes, we'll be in touch with all of the airlines. >> mr. secretary, you said you've been talking with the unions about this. are they going along wholeheartedly with your proposal? or are they -- >> we just started our talks today. our faa administrator, michael huerta, has been talking to paul rinaldi, the head of the controllers union. but the call today will be with the entire leadership of the controller's union. >> are you concerned that they could object to the kinds of cuts you are proposing? >> well, we'll find out. i mean, look, the discussions are beginning now. i'm sure that they've never been bashful about expressing their point of view. yes, sir. >> mr. secretary, does this in any way affect amtrak all that much? >> no, sir. >> no. >> no, sir, it does not. yes. >> mr. secretary, we went through this rodeo once before two months ago, the last time we came to the sequester deadline. did any of these conversations happen at the end of december last year with the unions and with the airlines? >> of course.

when we thought that there was going to be a sequester, of course we -- we're in continual discussions with these folks. we have a great partnership with them. and the answer is yes, of course. bill. >> mr. secretary, if the sequester goes through and these cuts kick in, how quickly can you turn off the switch and put things back to normal? >> look, all of our planning and all of our discussions and all of our work are about getting to where we're at today, with this announcement, with our discussions, and we'll see where it takes us. and planning for a restart is -- we haven't had a lot of discussion about that at this point. >> is there any requirement under the sequester that once it kicks in it has to last three months or four months or five months? >> no, not that i know of. >> what are you telling republicans in congress, mr. secretary? >> that this is going to have a huge impact on their constituents. look, and i can tell you --

>> when you break it down politically for them, what are you saying? >> that your phones are going to start ringing off the hook when these people are delayed at airports, and their flights are delayed 90 minutes, or their flights are cancelled, or their air tower is closed. look, you all know i was in congress 14 years. i represented central illinois, which included peoria and springfield, both with air towers. any time there was even a threat of a closing of an air tower in peoria/springfield, our phones started ringing off the hook from controllers, but also from people who use the airport. so it's not only the impact on the passengers, it's the impact that it has on airports, control towers, people who work there, airports. and their phones are going to start ringing. why does this have to happen? nobody likes a delay. nobody likes waiting in line.

none of us do. if we can't get our hamburger within five minutes -- if we can't get on the plane within 30, 40, 50 minutes after going through, you know what happens. they start calling their member of congress. >> but to jonathan's question, you're going to scrub everything to make sure the priority is safety and usability, right? >> number one is safety. always has been, always will be. we never take a back seat when it comes to safety. we will never compromise safety ever. never have and never will. yes, sir. >> do you agree with the administration's position that this is a manufactured crisis, one manufactured by your former house colleagues? >> i think republicans need to step up here. i served for 14 years. during those 14 years, i was -- 12 of those years i was in the majority party. speaker gingrich was the speaker. he worked with then-president bill clinton. we balanced the budget five of those fourteen years.

it meant that there was compromise. this requires compromise. this requires republicans stepping forward with some ideas about how to keep essential services of government running at the level that people have been accustomed to. this is not rocket science. this is people coming together the way that other congresses have done to solve big issues. i suggest that my former colleagues on the republican side go see the movie "lincoln," because in the movie "lincoln," it shows how hard it was back then to get things done. but what lincoln did is he gathered people around him the way that i believe president obama is doing by calling republicans, talking to them, trying to work with them. and when that happens, big things get solved. the fiscal cliff got solved because people started talking to one another.

so this can happen again. yes, ma'am. >> yes, have your phones been ringing from members of the public? and if so, what are they saying? >> i'm sorry have -- >> have your phones been ringing from members of the public yet? >> no, but look, this is the announcement today. we've been doing a lot of this background work, and so i have no doubt my phones will ring from members of congress -- why is my control tower being closed? >> mr. secretary, where were these warnings two weeks ago, a week ago? i mean, speaking of movie references, this might be called an acting performance, because you are -- you're going to be scaring the public today. this is going to be scaring the public about their travel plans. >> well, we'll see what the reaction of the public is. what i'm trying to do is to wake up members of the congress on the republican side to the idea that they need to come to the table, offer a proposal so that we don't have to have this kind of calamity in the air service in america.

and we want to get it right, so we've spent the last few weeks putting all of this information together so we do have it right. so that we are not just taking a meat axe to one part of faa, that we're looking at the full breadth of the entire agency. >> mr. secretary, you said that you want these guys to wake up. have you awakened them by using a phone? have you called any republicans recently? >> yes, i just said i've been talking to republicans and their staff on the t&i committee and on the senate commerce -- >> can you tell us who you spoke with and what the nature of those interactions were? and what are they saying to you in terms of their own leadership? >> i doubt if you really want a list of the members of congress i've been talking to, okay? but take -- >> how many? enumerate. >> a half a dozen. >> and what are they telling you about what they think about their own leadership? >> i didn't talk to them about their leadership. i talked to them about the impact on air travel and air traffic control towers. >> what was their reaction? >> it's not good. they get it. in the back. >> the republicans would say --

and they have been saying this that the democrats in the senate should act on two bills that they passed in the summertime. why aren't you calling the democrats in the senate and saying, pick up -- act on the republican bills and avoid sequester that way? what's wrong with that approach? >> i've been working on trying to figure out how we're going to get to a billion dollars. yes, sir. >> mr. secretary, in all the discussion about the sequester, you're the first cabinet secretary that's been brought into a white house briefing to talk about this for us recently. so, i mean, do you and the president think that the impatience of the american people at the airports is the strongest leverage point to press with the republicans? >> i would describe my presence here with one word -- republican. they're hoping that maybe i can influence some of the people in my own party. look, this is a big deal. it's a big deal because a lot of

people -- common, ordinary citizens fly. a lot of people use airports. and this is going to have a real impact. >> the department of transportation is taking part of this hundred-city tour called the connecting your community to talk about proposals in the president's state of the union address. will you end your participation in that tour as a way to cut some savings right now? sending dot employees out to -- >> well, i was supposed to be in orlando and south carolina today, so i guess i have ended it. >> is it not going to happen? is there going to be a bridge -- tom coburn is asking for an explanation of why it's being held in light of the sequester potential? the hundred-city tour. >> you'll have to ask jay about that. >> i'll take that one. >> mr. secretary, let's say -- i'm finally traveling to india in the next two weeks, should i be worried? (laughter.) >> you're going to be delayed. (laughter.) yes, ma'am. last one. >> you said you're telling

republicans to come to the table. are you telling them to raise taxes? i mean, are you telling them to >> no, i'm telling them to come to the table and start talking to democrats about how we solve this. they'll figure out the solution, just like they figured out the solution on the fiscal cliff. >> so you're not telling them that they shouldn't -- >> i have not told them the specifics about how to solve it. come together, talk to one another. figure it out. that's the way we've always done things around here. have a great weekend, everybody. >> i want to thank secretary lahood with whom it is always a pleasure to share this podium. (laughter.) no, i mean that seriously. and he'll be missed by me and everyone else here at the white house. if i could just -- in answer to the question in the back, we'll

just go straight to the issue here. the way to avert sequester is to pass a bill that can be agreed to by democrats and republicans that either buys down the sequester or, when there was time to do this, that achieves the $4-trillion goal by reducing the deficit further along the lines of the big deal that president obama and speaker boehner were talking about during the fiscal cliff negotiations. there's the offer the president made is still on the table -- spending cuts, entitlement savings, and revenues through tax reform. in this process, if you accept the premise that for democrats it is hard to go along with spending cuts -- or harder to go along with spending cuts and hard to go along with entitlement savings, that they might prefer to do revenues over that. so the tough sell to democrats is to go along with spending cuts and entitlement savings,

and that the tough sell, as we all know, because we hear it all the time, for republicans is to go along with revenue increases, and that leadership is represented in part, certainly in the discourse here in washington, by a willingness by the leaders of one party to convince their members to go along with tough choices. and i would then ask you to look at the proposals that we put up, that i had on the screen here yesterday, the offer that we made to speaker boehner, the president's budget, the president's submission to the super committee, which was specifically designed to eliminate the sequester. and in every single one, he has put forward balance. he has put forward spending cuts and savings from entitlement reforms. and as all of you know who have covered washington, some of that savings is a hard sell to democrats. but this president has been leading on the issue. unfortunately, we have not seen any commensurate action by republican leaders. their answer always is -- spending cuts only, no revenues, entitlement savings only, no revenues, burden borne by

seniors or faa employees or border security guards or children with disabilities, but not the wealthiest, not corporations who enjoy tax breaks, not oil and gas companies who get subsidies. that is always their answer. so you can't -- it is hard to find a compromise solution with a side that says the only available solution from our view is if you come 100 percent to us. and that, unfortunately, has been the narrative that you have been dealing with -- and certainly we have been dealing with -- now for -- really since the beginning of 2011. the president supports the proposals that the senate democrats have put forward and the house democrats have put forward that would buy down the sequester and give congress time to work on a bigger deal to reach that $4-trillion target in deficit reduction. the president has signed into

law, as you know, already $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction -- two-thirds of which is comprised of spending cuts and savings from entitlements. so only a third of that has been from revenues. we want balance. the american public wants balance. there was, i think, a public poll that was published in usa today -- i don't see a representative from that fine newspaper here today -- but yesterday that i think cited 76 percent of the american people support a balanced approach to this challenge. something like 19 percent supported a "my way or the highway" spending cuts-only approach. yes. >> since we're a week away from the deadline, is it the white house expectation at this point that the sequester will take effect next friday? >> we remain hopeful that congress will act, that the proposals democrats have been working on in both houses will

be taken up and passed, that republicans will -- having heard some of the information about what the impacts will be on real people out there, and the macro impact on the economy -- will come to the conclusion that it is better simply to do what they did in december and allow this manufactured deadline to be postponed so that they can get back to the work of doing what secretary lahood was just talking about, which is coming together and finding a reasonable, bipartisan compromise, a balanced compromise, to complete this job of achieving $4 trillion-plus in deficit reduction over 10 years. >> but what are the realistic prospects of that happening over the next week? >> i've never done very well in vegas or atlantic city, so i'm not going to make odds for you. we obviously are discouraged by the line that republican leaders

have taken, which is that the book is closed on revenue, despite the 76 percent of the american people who believe that balance is the right approach, that the only way to do this is the way they propose, which is not supported, obviously, in the senate and not supported by the american people, and not supported by the president. but we remain hopeful, and we will continue to engage with congress. we will continue to make our case around the country about why we need to avoid the sequester, what the damage of that would be to the economy and to average folks out there who -- some of whom are working today but will not be working 30 days from now if the sequester takes effect. this is incredibly important. it's about the broader enterprise here that everyone is engaged in -- those who are elected and sent to washington and that is taking steps to try to improve our economy, help it grow, and help the middle class. this does not help the middle class. it does the opposite.

and it's bad policy, by design, so we should not let it take place. jackie. >> jay, could you tell us about what the president's message was to the democratic governors this morning about this subject? >> i confess i was in other meetings so i wasn't present. i know that the president intended to speak with governors about the issues that are of concern to them. and i think what we all know about governors is that the issues that are of concern to them tend to be issues that aren't broken down by party affiliation. and that's the need for actions to be taken that help job creation, the need for investments in infrastructure, issues involving implementation of the affordable care act, i'm sure, immigration reform -- many of the issues that we are discussing here in washington. but that's not a readout, that's just my understanding of what those conversations were likely to look like.

>> is he intending to talk to them about encouraging them to go public with their concerns about the real-world impact of this in their states? >> well, i don't think you get elected governor in any state in this country if you are not out there talking about the issues that affect your constituents. and i don't -- so i guess my answer to that is i don't think he would have to tell governors of either party to be concerned about it or to communicate with their constituents about it. i expect that that's going to happen across the country. and democrats and republicans are going to have to explain what implementation of the sequester will mean in terms of job loss, furloughs, reduced economic growth, closure of airport towers, or reduced hours for air traffic controllers at their airport. these are just a handful of the impacts that we would see if the

sequester goes into effect. >> jay, the secretary said sequester doesn't allow for moving money around. is that completely true? does omb have any discretion? do the agencies have any discretion? >> i can't remember if you were in the chair when i had danny werfel here to talk about this from omb about how the law dictates what must happen in terms of the cuts. and i think secretary lahood reflected the -- in layman's terms -- the facts, which is there is very little flexibility in terms of how to make those cuts happen. within that limited flexibility, secretary lahood made clear that he will -- he and i'm sure other secretaries are doing this -- are doing everything they can to deal with these cuts and absorb them, prepare for them in a way that allows them to achieve

their mission. and in the case of the department of transportation and the faa, top priority is safety. so as he said at the top, that would mean -- because the faa is such a big chunk of the department of transportation and unavoidably would be affected by furloughs -- that you would have only the number of takeoffs and landings that the system could bear with a reduced staff. and that means -- and still maintain the levels of safety that the faa does. so that means reducing the number of flights, or delaying flights, with all that means for travelers. >> and i wasn't just referring to the transportation, but broadly, the answer is that the flexibility is very limited? >> that's correct. and again, i would point you to the briefing that was done i believe last week in which danny werfel addressed this. >> and just one follow-up. generally, can you give us any sort of a hint about what other plans you guys have for next week? we know the president is

traveling on tuesday, but otherwise how you intend to keep pushing this message up until the friday deadline? >> well, i don't have any other events or travel to announce. he will be going to newport news, virginia next week, as you know, to highlight the negative consequences of sequester and how they will be felt in that town, in that state. the fact is we have a full agenda, but it is certainly going to be the case next week that sequester and the impending deadline will i think consume a lot of people's attention here, -- both on this side of the podium and your side. and i think that our activities will include engaging, as they have in the past, engaging with congress, hoping that we can find resolution here, hoping we can find an agreement. we're not -- the smaller agreement, just as was the case at the end of last year, is not

asking of either side, because of its size, to make all of the hard decisions. a lot of that work would still be saved for completing the job of hitting the $4 trillion-plus target in a broader deficit- reduction deal. but as the senate proposal shows and other proposals have shown, you can do this as they did in december, in a way that is balanced but should not be that difficult. so we're hoping -- we remain hopeful that that will happen. >> one of the interesting things that you're seeing in some of these polls -- and i know you mentioned some polling in your conversation with brendan buck, with the speaker's office last night -- >> good friend, brendan. (laughter.) >> -- is that there's a large number -- >> i mean that seriously. >> there's a large percentage of americans who are unaware of what's going to happen with this sequester, don't even know what the sequester is, whether it should be called sequestration or sequester. >> we're all still struggling with that one, i think. >> why are these warnings, like

secretary lahood's warnings, coming so late in the game? i mean we're hearing about faa delays one week before the -- >> i refrained from interjecting because he's a cabinet secretary, but i wanted to say -- i wanted to leap to the podium and point that we put out, as mandated by law, a report on the implementation of sequester, i believe last september, because the deadline at that time was january 1st. and the fact is we have been talking about this and answering questions, and making clear that the planning was in effect in the lead-up to the potential deadline at the end of last year. and it was only -- remember, we're now, what, seven weeks since the 1st of the year, so it was only -- it hadn't been that long since the last deadline passed, but it was pushed back by the fiscal cliff deal. there was a lot of concern, obviously, late last year, in fact, a great deal of concern on the part of republicans about the potential for sequester taking effect. they seem to have had a change of heart about that. but at the time there was great

concern expressed by republicans about that. what was also the case is we were engaged -- because of the other deadlines, the fiscal cliff, the fact that there was the potential that taxes would go up on middle-class americans around the country -- we were in engaged in negotiations with the speaker of the house in an effort to try to achieve a bigger deal that would have both dealt with averting those tax hikes and further deficit reduction. unfortunately, the speaker walked away from that deal. but the environment was different. now we're not seeing any flexibility from -- it was different then than it is now. we're not seeing much interest at this point from republican leaders in even engaging in a discussion about how we can move forward with a balanced package. the line they keep drawing in the sand is, i don't care what the public says, i don't care who is hurt by it, our position -- the republican position -- is cuts only, burden borne only by

senior citizens, children with disabilities. >> is that a fair read of the substance of the conversations that went on between the president and republican leaders? >> i'm not going to read out those conversations. and i think you've seen that the leaders themselves who have had those conversations with the president aren't reading them out. we continue to, as a broad matter -- not specific to any one conversation -- to make the case that compromise is available here, that compromise is represented by taking a balanced approach. i mean, again, it really is important to me -- you can't -- the sort of pox on both their houses, false equivalence business that a lot of -- some commentators engage in where everybody is to blame equally here for how we got to this problem because nobody will compromise, but it is just factually incorrect. again, going back to that basic premise that it's harder for democrats to go along with spending cuts and entitlement savings and harder for

republicans to go with revenue increases -- so who has made the hard choices here? who has made the tough proposals? >> but to that point, democrats like to say republicans only control one-half of one-third of government. so shouldn't they just have one- half of one-third of the blame? >> the fact of the matter is that we can't get anything done without a bill passing the house of representatives, and the democratic party and the president of the united states do not control the house of representatives. we are confident that there is in excess of a majority in the senate that would support the balanced approach that the president has put forward, that the senate democrats have put forward. and we know, because your polling outfits tell the public this, that the public supports the balanced approach that the president has put forward. we also know it's the best economic policy. i was asked yesterday, i think, why can't -- doesn't the president have some power to just make the sequester go away on his own?

and, of course, he would enjoy having that power, but the law of the land does not give it to him. jon. >> jay, even before we heard from secretary lahood, we've heard some dire warnings coming from the administration. just to tick through a few, we've heard about more wildfires, more workplace deaths, higher risk of terrorism, criminals set free. is there any exaggeration going on here? >> i think all of those things come from reduced numbers of people fighting fires, reduced numbers of people doing inspections of our food, reduced numbers of people engaging in air traffic control. i mean, those are just the facts, jon. >> no other way to squeeze 3 percent out of the federal budget? >> i think we had this colloquy yesterday. the fact of the matter is that you are talking about a 13 percent cut in our defense budget and 9 percent cut in our nondefense discretionary budget this year. and there is no way to do that, based on the way the law is written, without having hugely

negative impacts on individuals and families. furloughs would have to happen. layoffs would have to happen. that is a fact. and it's not just us saying this. you don't believe us, maybe you believe the cbo. maybe you believe macroeconomics advisers or moody's. they have projected fully a half a percentage point reduction in gdp growth. and you know, because you cover this stuff, what that means economically. they have projected three- quarters of a million people will lose their jobs if the sequester takes effect and stays in effect. those are real-world consequences. these are real people. it's not political leverage. it's a fact. and we're out there making clear that this is an important issue to deal with because of the real-world implications. the reason why the president continues to put forward and we made clear again on paper what we have been making clear all along, the president's very

reasonable offer remains on the table because he wants to avoid this. let's just, again, go back to my basic point. it is not an easy sell to democrats to go along as part of a big deal with superlative cpi. it is not an easy argument necessarily to get democrats to go along with the reforms that the president has put in place in his proposal on entitlement reforms or with the spending cuts. it was not easy to sign into law $1.1 trillion in spending cuts. but he has done it, and democrats have done it. and what we haven't seen from republicans is anything equivalent. and we're just looking for a negotiating partner here. we're just looking for somebody to meet us halfway. >> is this hundred-city tour going to be cancelled? >> you know what, i saw somebody -- a reporter sent me this right before i came out here. i haven't had a chance to ask anybody about it. but we'll get back to you on it. >> but this would be the kind of thing, right? i mean, you wouldn't -- specific cabinet members all around the country -- >> i appreciate that a republican member has sent this around. i just don't have an answer for it, but i'll look into it.

>> but the broader question, jay, would be to prioritize those things out of a sequester matrix, wouldn't it? for this president to say, we can do without those things? >> -- the sequester matrix, so i'm not sure what that means, but it sounds cool. >> you understand what i'm saying. the president would prioritize these things out of the budget and not label them a priority against meat and poultry inspections, against faa air traffic controllers, against wildfire fighters. i mean, wouldn't he? >> again, i would urge you to look at the law and look at what >> i have. >> -- the flexibility there is in the law, and it is extremely limited. and even if it weren't -- >> yes, it's extremely limited, but the dollars and cents can be applied at agency discretion. if there's a hundred-city tour, it can be decided -- >> i appreciate the talking point based on a letter that a republican just sent moments ago. i haven't seen it. i don't have an answer for it at this time, but i will look into it. you can find an individual thing and say that this could be cut and maybe it should be, whatever it is -- but it represents a

drop in the bucket to an $85 billion cut, a 13 percent cut to our defense budget, and a 9 percent cut to our nondefense discretionary budget this year, this fiscal year. this is not spread out over 10 years. >> i understand that. >> this is not something you can backload. this happens now and it affects real people. and, again, don't take our word for it. look at what republicans used to say about it until i guess some consultant told them to say something else. look at what cbo and macroeconomics advisers and moody's have been saying. these are just the facts of the matter. one of the reasons why we're here, one of the reasons why we had the fiscal cliff fight and why we're discussing this is that everybody recognizes that these kind of indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts aren't good for the economy, aren't good for our defense, and they're not the way to sensibly reduce our deficit. >> i understand that. i'm just saying this president, as all presidents before him, took pride in prioritizing. and i'm just asking, as a priority for the president, the

signal to the agencies would be prioritize your core functions >> absolutely. >> -- over non-essential functions like this or something like it. >> again, i appreciate on the item that you mentioned and i'm sure that somebody will get back to you with an answer on that. the fact of the matter is you just had a cabinet secretary with enormous responsibility for an agency that affects everybody who travels in our skies tell you exactly that -- that that's what he is doing on the instructions of the president. within the law, he's looking at every available mechanism to lessen the impact of these cuts on the core mission of the department of transportation, the core mission of faa. so i think the answer is to you, yes. >> this may be self-evident, but is it your position from the podium today to instruct or ask the senate democratic leadership to with all due speed next week pass their alternative to the sequester and send it to the house?

>> we would absolutely like to see the senate take up and pass legislation that would avert the sequester in a balanced way, and the house to do that as well, yes. >> and within that context, it's $85 billion over the next nine months remaining in our fiscal year. does the deal that the white house envisions have to be $85 billion, or would it be smaller than that? >> the buy-down -- >> would be $85 billion -- >> the buy-down could be -- look, it was two months on january 1st, december 31st -- it could be that. but the bill that has been put forward by democrats in the senate i believe takes it to the end of the year. the sequester, as you know, the $1.2 trillion is stretched over 10, yes. >> right, but that's over the next -- all those fiscal years. but just $85 billion is the contours of what you want, and you roughly have -- portion that half revenue and half spending cuts. so the federal budget could live with -- >> well, i would point -- whatever the ratio is in the bill, i would point you to the president's overall approach to this, which has been two dollars in spending cuts to one in revenue. >> jay, we've heard over the

last couple of years from secretary geithner, from lael brainard, from mike froman, their concerns that countries in the eurozone were cutting too much, too quickly. to what extent does the president's experience in watching that inform his philosophy going into these negotiations? >> obviously, every country has dealt with the global economic crisis that befell us in 2007, 2008 in different ways. we believe, and the president believes, that the approach that was taken here in washington was the right one, and that as a result -- even though we suffered a calamitous recession, the worst of our lifetimes that took millions and millions of jobs -- we have been able through hard work and tough decisions, and the grit and determination of the american

people, to come to a position where the economy has been growing steadily. and it has been creating jobs -- over 6 million private-sector jobs. that work is not done. so the focus that the president has had was one that prioritized in the beginning the need to stop the bleeding, the need to avert a depression. and the actions that he took with congress in 2009 are widely viewed to have done that. and then to, as things began to stabilize, to go about the business of getting our fiscal house in order in a reasonable, balanced, common-sense way. and we have been doing that. as you know, it hasn't always been pretty, but over the past year and a half the president has signed into law now $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction, a significant portion of that has been spending cuts. but it's been done in a way that has allowed the economy to continue to grow and create jobs not fast enough, not enough

jobs, but it's been positive growth and positive job creation. i mean, i think -- i don't have the graph i had yesterday here, today, but the one that showed the dramatic decrease in the deficit in the last several years, the sharpest decrease in the deficit since world war ii. and then, what would happen based on our projections if the president's proposal to speaker boehner were implemented in terms of bringing that deficit down even further and stabilizing it below 3 percent of gdp. that's the approach we believe is right, because it's the best for sustained economic growth. >> to what extent was that, though, a powerful negative example for him? people's outlooks change from their experiences in the presidency. i have heard that it was a big spur for him to take this particular position. >> well, i don't want to characterize the president's thinking on what other countries have been doing. he's focused on what he believed was the right course for the united states, and believes that

while we have significant work to do to continue to grow our economy and have it create jobs, that we made the right choices. and the results have borne that out. again, very much like the fact that we need to continue to focus on growing our economy, expanding the middle class, helping people who aspire to the middle class enter the middle class. and that's why that's his number-one priority. it's been the focus of his state of the union address. and it's why the debate we're having over this crazy thing called sequester or sequestration is so important, because the last thing we should be doing in washington is throwing a wrench in an economy that has been moving in the right direction. >> jay, two questions. first, just one month ago, secretary clinton said that the u.s. opposes any unilateral action seeking to undermine japan's

administration -- >> i'm sorry, who said that? >> secretary clinton. >> hillary clinton is no longer secretary. >> yes, former secretary. >> oh, i see. >> yes, she said the u.s. will oppose any unilateral actions seeking to undermine japan's administration over diaoyu islands. and i just want to know, is that the firm position that the president will address? >> i haven't seen those comments. i would simply say that the president's meeting with the prime minister in just a little while here, and there will be a pool spray, and i think they both will have statements. so i don't want to get ahead of that. >> and also, on north korea. russia and china today -- they say they oppose any military intervention in north korea. what's the position of the white house? >> again, i would urge you to hear what the president has to say today. i think we got to go, because -- >> can i do just one quickly? >> yes, one more, kristen. >> can you comment on or confirm the reports that the united states is preparing to establish

a drone base in northwest africa? >> i think those reports are fairly old, but i have no comment on that. thanks. >> week ahead, sir? >> i do have a week ahead. >> old but no comment? >> well, i remember -- i don't know, is this a new report? there was a report that i -- >> well, in light of -- >> -- didn't comment on the other day or i had a comment on. i'm not sure this is a new report. >> do you have a timeframe on it? >> i'll have to get back to you, kristen. i'm not sure what our -- >> -- that you're aware of. >> sure. on sunday, the president and first lady will welcome the national governors association to the white house for the 2013 governors dinner. the vice president and dr. biden will also attend. on monday, the president and the vice president will deliver remarks to the national governors association in the state dining room. the first lady and dr. biden will also deliver remarks. on tuesday, the president will travel, as you know, to newport news shipbuilding, a division of huntington ingalls industries in newport news, virginia -- region

of my forebears -- to highlight the devastating impact that the sequester will have on jobs and middle-class families if congressional republicans fail to compromise to avert the sequester by march 1st. in just seven days, a series of automatic cuts could go into effect that would severely affect companies like this one that depend on the defense industry and its workers. this company has a supplier base in all 50 states, many of which are small businesses that rely solely on newport news shipbuilding for their business. the president will return to washington, d.c. later in the day. on wednesday, the president will deliver remarks at the unveiling of a statue of rosa parks at the united states capitol. in the evening, the president will deliver remarks at the business council dinner here in washington, d.c. and on thursday and friday of next week, the president will attend meetings here at the white house. thank you all. >> jay, real quickly, have there been any furloughs in the white house? has the chief of staff ordered any furloughs? is your staff going to be affected? >> i took this question. as you know and has been

reported, the eop is affected by the sequester. and i'm sure that the omb has been working on that as it has with every agency.>> on the next washington journal, governor jack markell. and harvard medical school's george church. >> at age 25, she was one of the wealthiest widow o in the colonies. she was considered an enemy by the british, who threatened to

take her hostage. later, she would become the world's first first lady. meet martha washington. "first ladies, influence and images." we will visit colonial williamsburg, mount vernon, valley forge, and philadelphia. become part of the conversation with your calls, tweets, and facebook host. life monday at 9:00 p.m. >> now new york chamber of commerce president thomas donohue. he talked about the federal budget, the economy, and immigration. his remarks are about an hour. >> it is my honor to introduce tom donohue, resident of the us chamber of commerce. [applause]it was in 1997 that

tom donohue became president and ceo of the us chamber, and over the past 15 years, he has built it into an unparalleled lyrical powerhouse. he has more than quadrupled the budget and added hundreds of thousands of new members. airing his tenure, lobbyist, policy experts, and communicators help secure victories on the hill and in the court of public opinion and before governments around the world. one of his great abilities has been a knack to identify key issues well ahead of the curve. in an erroa of economic challenges, he has introduced growth, including rebuilding america's infrastructure, protecting intellectual property, revitalizing capital markets, and reforming entitlements. under his leadership, the chamber has emerged as a major political

force. as part of this bipartisan effort, millions of grassroots is ms. advocates -- business advocates mobilized in support of pro-business candidates. he has worked closely with the chamber on a number of issues over the years and continues to do so. the center for legal policy enjoys a strong working relationship with the center for legal reform. we are glad lisa was able to join us. what i admire most about tom is how he combines a deep understanding of the issues with this philosophy encourage as an advocate. while so many in washington. the pressure, tom donohue refuses to stand down for that which he believed in. a classic journalistic interview question to ask your subject is if you are in a foxhole, who would you want beside you.

tom donohue would be the number one answer for many in washington. please join me in welcoming tom donohue. [applause]>> thank you. larry, thank you for not reading the obituary. and thank you for your thoughtful hyperbole. allow me to make one adjustment to what larry said. 450 of the smartest and most creators -- and most courageous and super people who have ever been in this business. we have done it together. i'm going to talk a little while and then do some q and a. i will leave a good amount of time for that to start making about what you would like to ask. i operate under a simple system. i even know the answer.

i will make it up. most of the time, i am close to write, so we will give it a go thank you for inviting me. thank you for the valuable, collaborative relationship with the organization putting in studies and information together with advocacy. we appreciate that. no one single person has done more to make this institution the valuable place it is then you have. it is different and very much the same. when you put it together, it is a strong team. the analysis and market oriented solutions offered by the institute i needed today more than ever. this is especially true as our policymakers in washington

neglect some of the fundamental realities. you have heard the old quip that a gaffe in washington is when someone accidentally tells the truth. it is one thing to differ over philosophical direction and approach. that is democracy. the routine neglect of a sick fax -- basic facts and the fundamental reality is something we are seeing more and more at every level of government in politics and in the governance. it should concern all of us. that is why the manhattan institute is so important. you have a philosophical rudd er. your research and your conclusion are grounded in facts. i stand up to the test of reason

and sound argument. -- they stand up to the test a reason and sound argument. keep doing what you are doing. washington could use a strong dose of reality. let me give you a few examples. first, you cannot do much of anything without economic growth. you cannot create growth and jobs without the private sector. here is another reality -- democracy is destiny. demographics is destiny. there are plenty of folks in washington who are acting like they have never heard this before. they refuse to acknowledge any changes in entitlements to reflect longer life expectancies and earlier retirements and long retirees and a shortage of nativeborn americans to run our economy. those are facts.

there is another reality that most people know is true, but they want to wish it away. that is that there is no such thing as a national economy anymore. that is the truth. at least not like we once knew it. we are all part of a global economy and a very competitive one at that. policies must reflect this reality. any rational analysis of the facts and our history will tell us that of all the things that we believe that make america special, the one that stands out above all others and explains our success and our leadership is the value of economic freedom. the right to give it a go. the right to take a risk and be rewarded for success. the right to take a risk and to fail and to get up off the floor

and do it again. the dream of standing on your own two feet. seizing an opportunity and building a self-sufficient system through hardware and personal responsibility -- hard work and personal responsibility. it is something we must reserve for future generations. why would we want to move by design or by accident to a system where we turn over more of our freedom and responsibility to the central government? we can find a way to help the truly disadvantaged without squandering the greatest gift and our greatest strength -- our personal liberty and our self- reliance. at the chamber, the agenda is fashioned around these realities. we call it american jobs and

growth agenda. it is more than that. it is an agenda that focuses on our national and our global competitiveness and our need to be fiscally responsible. it is an agenda that understands how vital our economic and other freedoms are to our success, prosperity, and freedom. permit me to tell you a little more about that. let's talk first about growth. growth will not solve all of our problems, but we cannot solve any of them without economic wrote. so many policymakers in washington fail to understand the power of growth or where it comes from. economic growth is the cause that provides opportunity for the young, the security for the old, and allows families to

pursue their idea of the american dream. what a powerful force it can be. for example, if the economy grew at four percent, instead of a meager two percent that we have right now, we could create 10 million additional jobs over the next decade. we could return the economy to full employment with no rising government spending. with 4% growth, the government would collect more than $3 trillion in additional revenues over the coming decade. we would see a 30% reduction in the 10 year budget deficit. that means something like $7 trillion would still be added to

the deficit. here is another reality. household income would increase significantly. 3 million people would rise out of poverty. chortle -- charitable giving would increase. here is another reality -- without growth, we cannot get those jobs. why isn't growth the number one story in washington? the president has made jobs and growth a priority from time to time when it should be the major priority. many members of congress believe jobs and growth are the byproduct of government spending. if that were true, we would be living in paradise. growth comes from a robust, have it set or that is allowed -- from a robusta, private sector

that is allowed to innovate and rewarded and punished for success. at the chamber, our priority for 20 13 remains stronger -- for 2013 remains strong. we want to compete and win around the world. the big question is -- how do we get there? first, attract global talent. we will not have sustained growth in jobs without attracting the best and the brightest and figuring out a way to get them here and keep them here. this is the one area where washington appears to be finally accepting the reality a) we cannot deport people and it would tear apart

families in a way that is unacceptable to our belief system. we are a nation of immigrants. our immigration system is broken. it does not serving the interest of our economy, business is, or society. -- business is, or society. we need a stronger economy and a broader tax base. the chamber has been advocating for immigration reform for years. this year might be the best chance to make it work. we believe immigration reform must have at least four opponent. it must secure the borders. we have made progress, but we have more to do. we must have employment-based visa row grounds that would

allow businesses to use and great labor -- immigrant labor. 10,000 people in america retire everyday, seven days a week. we have got to be able to attract people at both ends of the scale. immigration reform must have a reliable, national employee verification system and not a system that is out to punish people. finally, it must provide a path out of the shadows. for the 11 million undocumented workers who are living in the united states. to succeed in a competitive and

global economy, we have to remain an open and welcoming society. we have all kinds of committees at the commerce that decide on policies. my mother-in-law came to the united states at 11 years of age to join her mother who had another family and my father-in- law came at about the same to join an entrepreneur. they took the risk to come here. she was one of the smartest people i have ever known with four years of education. this country has attracted people like that forever. if you turn them away, you'll wish you did not. i will say one thing -- you can

look in the newspaper today and tomorrow and probably sunday and you'll find out that the chamber and a couple of other unions have come to an agreement on most of this. it does not surprise me. union numbers have gone down. they have an idea that they have people who work here that might have a chance to make their business grow. if they do not get them, here is what happens -- if you do not get work on the high end and you do not get workers on the low end, you send your work to where the workers are. this is not compensated. we have got to responsibly develop our extraordinary, natural resources. we have more oil, gas," than any

other country i would've the largest single national -- gas then any other country. we can generate government revenues to tackle the fiscal problem. we can boost manufacturing and exports. it will reduce our reliance on foreign imports. all over europe, people are paying eight dollars per gallon of gas. all over the world, chemical companies that let the united states to get their seed corn, which is natural gas, are coming back here. they can get at a cheap price and they are getting out of the

middle east. what a great opportunity for us. we can boost manufacturing and have a stable supply of domestic energy. we can reduce our reliance on foreign imports. some are shaky. we can put a hell of a lot of people to work. in the last two, we put many to work fracking gas and oil. we have been doing it for 69 years. the president hailed the benefit of american energy and crude, gas, and oil. but he did not say is that these sectors have thrived in spite of the federal government and not because of it. the surge in unconventional oil

and gas is made possible industry and the development -- if the government wants to help and not hurt, he can start by opening up new plants -- they can start by opening up new plants. the government owns about 60% of our land mass. no problem, but let's open it up. the government can open a predict it will and their regulatory environment. there are on and on lawsuits all about trying to hand her to one political interest group. there are roadblocks.

everywhere i go home are we going to get the pipeline? -- everywhere i go, are we going to get the pipeline? when we left the market, we got a shale boom. we can take full advantage of our energy opportunity from all sources, from all methods of getting it in the public and -- of getting it if the public and private sectors work together. it is time for greater global engagement durin. the majority the majority of people we want to sell to live around the world. president obama called for swift completion of the transpacific pipeline -- not

pipeline, partnership. he announced the united states was ready to begin negotiations with europe on a u.s.-eu trade ownership. we could not agree more. let's hurry up and put american business to work. let's get these deals done. by the way, it is not just about asia. it includes all the coasts of the united states and canada and america. it is fascinating. we need to get this going and move that european deal. the working group is about to put out a report. i think it will probably sustain the best teams we can think about. let me give you this in a minute. europe is in a slow economy.

europe is our largest export partner. europe is china's largest export your. china is our fastest growing export partner. if europe goes into the can, the whole triangle goes in the can. that is a bad idea. this would be huge on both sides of the pond. there are a lot of big trade agreements that have been talked about or a long time. these would put cash on the table right now. it is important that we welcome global investment. we want people to bring their cash here. come here and invest or come here and visit. the terrorism is a great way -- tourism is a great way.

we like that. most people do not understand how many jobs that creates. millions of jobs. we need to remove regulatory barriers and stem that tide of the huge regulatory tsunami that is being planned for the next war years. -- four years. you remember we all went to school. we study there were three parts of government -- administrative part, the legislative part, and the judicial part. i'm racking my brain. hell, i do not remember anything about the regulatory part. we better do something. our economy thrives when the hand of government is relatively

light and giving entrepreneurs the freedom to innovate and businesses the confidence to invest. a flood of regulations are coming down the pipeline. it is staggering. the new rules and the mandate of the healthcare law could drive costs through the roof and suppress hiring investments. at that healthcare was not going to cost us anymore? then the dodd frank reform law mandates more regulations a. ready leaders have only finalized about a third of them -- regulators have only finalized about a third of them. the new ozone regulation that they are just a getting through will cost $90 billion. we will run out by the rate they

are going. there are 4000 regulations every year. is that really necessary? we know we need government. we just need to restore balance -- common sense. we need to bring more accountability to our system. we need to make sure that the costs do not outweigh the benefits and that the roleules based on demonstrated need and fax. -- facts. in the government oversteps its bounds and tramples the rights of business is our individuals, we will use the justice system. we need to stop all of these ridiculous lawsuits around the country. we have another group. we believe in balance.

their suits are ridiculous and hours are necessary. [laughter] -- ours are necessary. [laughter] inaction. about it is the most inexcusable. government spending levels are unsustainable. you cannot keep it up the way we are going. discretionary, defense, and entitlement spending has to be bent down a little. we do not have to get rid of the defense department or medicare, but we have got to find ways on the parameter of fixing these issues. we need more revenue, but raising taxes cannot, close to fulfilling that gap. i mean, just think about it.

you cannot do it the way they are trying to do it. the richest 10% pay 55% of the .axes coul and the french have never recovered. did i say that was c-span on? oh, what the heck. [laughter] [applause] you could confiscate the earnings of couples making more than $1 million a year and still not come anywhere close to solving the deficit problem. those that claim that higher taxes can eliminate the deficit or that entitlement programs do not add to our debt either do not understand arithmetic come up are, or living in fantasyland. the day we started medicare we were borrowing to pay it off.

it is getting eager and bigger all the time. our growing debt burden will crush the next iteration of americans if we do not do something about it. on this issue, the first step is that we need to address the leadership that this it. -- a leadership deficit. [applause] we need to close the gap between rhetoric and reality. we promise far more than we can deliver. because of choices, many leaders that both -- of both parties is unstable. bottom line -- you cannot solve the crisis without serious spending restraint. that requires us to address

entitlements first, second, and third. there are vital programs that need to be revised to meet the needs of today's population and match the reality of our changing demographic. we're not talking about cuts in absolute terms. it will continue to grow. we must slow the rate of increase by making reasonable adjustments over a number of years. we will not get in the near future a comprehensive tax reform. our current tax system is antiquated and complicated and uncompetitive. we have made so many commitments in the last set of legislation before the end of the year. i do not think we can get a comprehensive deal. a lot of people will criticize me for that, but let's talk about the facts.

the right kind of tax reform that accelerates jobs with criers more revenue -- requires more revenue growth. let me conclude, now is the most thrilling time you'll ever live in. this is the most interesting agenda we have ever faced. does it lend itself to the sensational entertaining animated german coverage? no. -- and media coverage? no. it's boring. but it is real and it is based on fact. it faces up to the challenges that we face. we need a greater recognition and respect for the facts in this country.

we can have different philosophies and approaches to solving problems, but we will not get very far if we do not come close to agreeing on the facts. do you remember that great guy from new york? patrick moynihan? he said everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact. we must deal with reality or reality will deal with us. it will win out every time. the best way to do so is to embrace our founding principles. abraham lincoln once wrote those principles are applicable to all men at all times. i thought i would do that because lincoln is pretty big right now in the movies.

to preserve economic freedoms, we have to defend principles and not change them. we must defend against an ever growing and all-powerful but a government that promotes dependency, erodes personal responsibility, and rules the people instead of the people ruling the government. we must defend against the yoke of a government regulation system that strangle's entrepreneurship, innovation, and the fundamental building block of earned success. there can be no liberty or prosperity without peace and security. more than that, we need to go on

the offensive. we need to be the focal and aggressive accidents -- vocal and aggressive advocates. for market-based solutions rooted in the reality that it will help reignite the economy that put us where we were and put us back on the path to prosperity. the stark reality of the leadership deficit in washington is that one cannot afford to ignore. in fact, this is a call to leadership. it is a leadership that is unafraid to point out the realities and offers sensible, workable solutions that might involve short-term paying for long-term gain. we need a national conversation

over the tough choices that should be made without demeaning people who have a view that might be different than ours. doing so requires us to tell people things they do not want to hear. many leaders in washington do so, so we must. this is our call to leadership, and one the chamber willingly answers with our own agenda for growth reform and freedom and talk about all over the world. i must underscore the need for common sense dialogue. we must draw from the same view of reality and the same set of facts. then we can fight like hell for our positions. even gridlock in the ok on occasion, but we must be bound

together a reason and facts and begin again our leadership in this important regard. we must do this because america needs us. our country needs it. it will pay a horrific advice if we do not. thank you for inviting me in and your kind attention and all to do in this organization to press people to see reality, to see the facts, and real solutions. i look forward to hearing your thoughts and what you have to say. i even -- -- even if i know the answer or i will try hard to make it up. [applause] >> just a reminder -- c-span is

here. once he picks you, please wait for the microphone to reach you so our tv audience can hear your question as well. >> i will start right there. here comes the mic. we will play a little game. you have to tell me what your name is an sort of who you are so i can know what you really need. [laughter] >> i hope that you will take that i mean what i say. >> good goo. >> with your reference to the lincoln movie, it is unanimous that you deserve the academy award for setting out the facts and appropriate objective shou. i went to bring it down to something that troubles me. we had an election not long ago that the public heard the

differences between two candidates. one that voiced mostly your views lost. they do not want to repeat romney's mistake of the 47%. there are many people who live off the government and its various revenues that it provides. how is a practical matter in this reality. are we going to convince the american public that they should vote against the hand that feeds them and vote for the stronger future that you speak of? >> you gave me the quick invitation to make a second real quick speech, but look. we do not do presidential politics, but we follow it

closely just as we do with the house and the senate. that was the toughest, best run that has ever been run. i was in florida over the weekend. second, i would call to mind that after the election, they went and a -- they went out and did a survey. no matter how you voted, which of the candidates was better suited to deal with economic problems? romney won by about 80 something percent. always better to deal with global challenges? romney by about 70%. which candidate was better to deal with trade and investment?

romney by a huge percentage. which candidate understood me and my problems and will help me more than the other? obama with 89% or something. we know where we need to go. we know there are fundamental issues that we have to fix. people think those guys can fix them, but these guys will help me. the second set of things i would say, we did very well in elections in the house. the chamber did. the state attorney general -- we got clobbered in the senate. there are two sets of issues. we got some of the wrong candidates and some are financed to get in by the democrats. great story. fundamentally, what republicans did wrong -- by the way, the

chamber is not all about republicans. we would like to support democrats. gone away.has no i talked to a lot of people. they are great, but i walked and talked to people about how to sell ideas. they said, tell me what romney said about why i want to be resident and what i'm going to do to help you. you have got to think about it. he was on the defensive from the get-go. he was in a dozen of mickey mouse debates on the social issues. it is a serious issue where we did not get to say, look people, this is what i will do. we will do a lot better on polling and technology and giving the message and i want to

make sure we have people that have a shot at winning. next. the boy in the back somewhere. good. >> gene. economics economist. thank you for the inspiring talk. you alluded to the evils of the crony capitalist system sometimes called corporate welfare worker printed them caused by obama and others partnership -- and corporate welfare caused by obama and other partnerships. it is perverted so that profits are -- that causes problem. what is the position of the

chamber of commerce on this system and the evils? >> first of all, thank you for the question. i'm very interested to talk to you. i deal with the press all the time. -- i do not think i said that. i do not think i said exactly that. i would be careful how you write that. there is no question there is a long-established relationship between companies and the government. the people in the defense business and the heavy research business and in the medical business are all inclined in the government.

we accept that. second, there is no question that lots of companies would like to have tax credit. we all like other advantages that we can get through the government arrangement. by the way, we all do not like the other part. the part that regulates on issues and directs us on issues that make our business more difficult. you are right in the concept that there is a more extensive relationship between government and business than it was years ago. it is absolutely true with small companies. you have to get from big to small. if a company spends about 25 or

30% of its resources on buying services from small companies. there is a relationship. small companies like the deals they get. they like that a lot of regulations -- that certain taxes only apply to etc., etc. it would be less than factual to say that companies do not have a relationship with the government. my suggestion today is that it is getting more significant. it is getting more difficult for big companies to leanne and figure out where they are going -- to plan and figure out where they are going. it is getting much more complicated.

yes, the relationship therefore between business and government is much more complicated than they were. there are people who will meet me at the door, that is fine. facts are facts, remember? thank you. we will go over here. >> tom, thank you for your speech and for being here in new york with us. those of us who have been here for a long time and those affiliated with the manhattan institute are often very preoccupied with issues you did not mention, and that is public employee unions. i understand the u.s. chamber is involved in working in that area as well. i do not think you had a chance to mention it yet. >> if you look at my background , i have an interesting relationship. i helped negotiate

contracts years ago between the united states government and the than 800,000 or 850,000 postal workers. who by the way at the time were at the top of their game. the postal service was coming along and coming out of the government and providing goods and services. today they have been shrunk because of the issues of new technology. because of the issues in new ways of communicating. because of the new ways of paying bills and spending money. the reason i point that out is because i have a lot of experience and because you need to see what happens. they still have all of those pension liabilities. all of them. if you have half the number of people taking in that you had

paying him before, -- paying him before, that is a miountain that is too high. it was done by the old geezers. all of the new yorker guys should know. they went out to look at this. they went out to look at what are the burdens on the state? the federal government can print money. they can go bankrupt, but states cannot go bankrupt. first of all, what are the pension liabilities? the idea is to look broadly and pick six dates. what did they find out? when they first started counting this, states told them they had

a liability of about a trillion and a half. when they added it all up, it was 3.5 trillion. this is unfunded. they looked at healthcare. they found generally that no one had approved any money for public employees. fewer of them now. he got a whole bunch of those people that were retiring. they were not eligible yet for .edicare eare he told them to get on obama's new healthcare system. they continue to study. they said -- remember i told you how big the pension liability is. how bad is that? they gave them three things --

medical questions, the issue of pensions, then the issues of medicare. which was the worst? i will tell you -- the pensions. that is nothing compared to the medicaid costs in the states. it is like a rocket going up. who knows how to dilettante? -- who knows how to deal with that? new york went broke. jerry ford was the president. he said that we needed some money. this is when new york was the capital of the headquarters of all of the companies. they changed the law and did all of this stuff.

he got a lien on all kinds of assets in new york and worked it out. when illinois and not california was broke and came in and said to the illinois president, we need some cash, which will be due? . know what we will do goo we will call and see if we can have an example of how this could be done. public employees are dedicated people. we have lots of them. some of them give their lives to us. public employee unions have sucked the vitality out of the lot of communities and are trying to change the way corporations are run. they are the people that are

getting businesses to disclose every nickel they spend dealing with government and policy on the state and federal level because they want to be the people that get the state legislatures and the federal government to support their issues and they want to be able to control the companies and keep them out of doing that. bad news for those guys. ain't happening. we are very involved in that. we one that by the way. --we won that, by the way. it is a real issue. we have got to do it in two ways. we have not to deal with the economics that we have created. it is huge. yep. >> david. will we get a clear

stone pipeline? -- david. will they get a keystone pipeline? >> yes. you did not ask me when. >> when? >> all the arguments are there. we are building the pipeline from oklahoma to the coast. we have gotten the release from the oven or of nebraska -- governor of nebraska that it was ok to move it. the argument that the canadians say if we don't do it they will sell it to the chinese -- they will build a pipeline anyway. the canadians are probably our closest friends. we treat them so badly because their family. [laughter] i tell them that all the time.

if they did this to the canadians of the deal, there'll be hell to pay. the prime minister is a very competent guy. i think he would take steps to demonstrate that we have been playing with this for a long time. if you stiff us on this, you will find that what stiffing is all about. i have time for a few more. how about in the back? stand up. you do not want to stand up? stay right there. go ahead. >> i'm a former u.s. department worker. i'm a registered republican.

>> good for you. [applause] >> thank you. i live in target city. i looked to my government to protect the in times -- protect me in times of national -- natural disasters and terrorist attack. is it ok to look to them for that. >> of course. you hear about sequestration. gina will help to create that is the president of the united states. he is -- do do you know who held create that? the president of the united states. the sequestration would consume about 2.2% of our annual

spending. 2.4% maybe. two point something. all of these issues that the police force will be laid out and all of the hospitals will close, that is rock. -- that is crock. there will be spending cuts are the wrong kind of spending cuts and some places. there might be too many spending cuts in the defense department. let's get something straight. we're are not talking about robbing a bank. we are talking about 10 years. sequestration will not last a month. the next thing that comes up at the end of the month is the issue of getting a federal budget.

what the administration wants to do is force republicans to close the government. they believe that will help them win the house in 2014. the republicans better get their story worked out. the democrats have also got to run for office. it is time that everyone got together and got over this mickey mouse beating up on each other and realized the facts. how will we go about this? how do we do it over time? that we can fight about everything else. but we will get there. there is a system of checks and balances.

to his benefit it will accrue to? i'm not sure. there is a long time until 2014. that is a good question. this is an issue. just the facts, ma'am. i can do one quick question. >> one quick one. >> thank you for your comments. you pointed to high taxes and litigation and regulations of what the economy is suffering. there is a tone from the president and his allies that the top 1% do not hate their fair share of taxes.

-- pay their fair share of taxes. is that rhetoric? or do businessmen and women shrugged their shoulders and go on with this this? >> they pay a lot of taxes. who is arguing whether you should pay another two or three percent of something? no one really argues about that. everyone said we would do a balanced thing. we have not touched entitlements yet. anyone who makes that kind of money knows how to count. i think the meaning of success is a real mistake. in the chamber we want to encourage and support success and encourage risk taking and

support without demeaning the people that do it. wherever it is, it is a problem when 52% of the people that work in america do not pay any federal income. it is a problem. it is a problem when having cut payments to social security after the fact of the tax increase being led by others. just the facts, man. it will help. i'm all over the world. i cannot discuss getting rid of the president. i do not do presidential politics.

bottom line -- you guys get the facts and we will disseminate them. thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> next is emily miller. tomorrow, a winter meeting for the national governors association. that is followed by discussion on employing people with disabilities and a look at the role of state government in cybersecurity. live coverage begins at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. washington times columnist emily miller wrote a multi part series on efforts to legally a

handgun in washington, and ec bank -- in washington, d.c. we talked about d.c. gun laws. we also talked about proposals for new federal gun regulation. >> i do not know if you heard that caller talking about women and guns. do you have a response? guest: i shot a gun about a year ago. this year is my one year anniversary of being a gun owner. my first time on the range was gary. it is loud. i'm on a range right now. like any skill, you learn and you get trained and you do it responsibly. i much better. i feel more confident having a loaded gun in my home. host: what is emily gets her gun? guest: it is a series that i did for the washington times.

host: why did you decide to get a gun? guest: i was the victim of a home invasion. i was taking the dog for a walk and i left the front door and opened -- unlocked. i came back and there was a man coming out of the house. long story short, he did not harm me, but he stole my wallet and got away. i followed him down the street cou. i tried to take a photo. when i turned the corner, i found tim with about 15 other men and two pickup trucks on the cul-de-sac. a new i was in danger so i've been back into my house. because i had spooked them and come home early, i was absolutely terrified sleeping in

the house alone. all i could do is barricade myself in the bedroom and put a jester in front of the door. -- and put a dresser in front of the door go. at least if i had a gun and the bad guys came back, i would be able to defend myself. and d.c. is one of the hardest things to do. host: what did it cost you and how long did it take? guest: it took me from the time i started to the time i had possession of my gun -- four months and a lot of money in fe es. it is expensive for most residents in washington. it was expensive for me. host: how much was the gun? guest: $780 i want to say.

it was quite an investment. the hardest part was it was a requirement at the time you could not teach in the city because they are required out in the range. it was restricted, where you could teach it and all these men teaching in their homes. i could not find an instructor. the city council, because of exposing this, the city council passed a law that took away that requirement, the five-hour class. there are still 11 steps to gun ownership, down from 17 when i get it. -- did it. guest: who is charles sikes, and what is his role in the gun

buying process? host: he is the one legal gun dealer in washington d.c. he has a unique role, transferring guns. it has to be transferred to a dealer in the state, same rules apply. if you buy a new one, you have to go through him. he got zoned out of his office and had no place to go. the city residents had no way to get legal handguns. the deal that was made was that he could work out of his dmv, a gun dealer in the dmv. i went three or four times. i had to get a ballistics test from his office. he is the man that you call if you want to get a gun in d.c.

host: why a sig? what is a sig? guest: sig-sauer is a brand like colt or remington. it is harder in washington because there are no ranges. people spend a lot of time trying different guns at the shooting range behind me. that is the way you can get a test for how it feels. i did it one time. there is one convenient gun range. i've narrowed it down to five because there are no carry rights in d.c. lee put up a pole at the washington times to let people vote. they chose the sig-sauer.

i got the stainless steel two-toned, so it looks cool, too. host: how often has emily practiced in the last year? guest: i go once every month or two. host: what are the restrictions when it comes to taking the gun out of the house? guest: washington d.c. is the last place in the country where it is illegal to bear arms. the second amendment is not recognized in the nation's capital. the court of appeals overturned the illinois state law that had the same provision that you could not leave with your gun. there are 180 days to rewrite that to allow people to bear arms. d.c. is the only place where you can't take your gun out of your home.

the only people that have guns on the streets are the bad guys. assaults are up 20% last year. violent crime is up 3%, i am not exactly sure because the police took down their crime statistics website. it is the last place, and it has to be overturned by the court eventually. it is neither safe, nor constitutional to have a law abiding people as sitting ducks. bad guys know there is a chance to shoot back. and they will probably not target you. violent crime across the bridge is so much lower. there is very little chance you

will have a gun to be able to shoot back when they want your found. -- your phone. host: as a reporter, how long have you investigated buying an illegal weapon in d.c.? guest: i have wanted to do that so badly but we have not been able to find a way. a way that would not put my life at risk or break the law. i will look at statistics when the police decide to put them back on line and see if guns are being stolen or bought off the streets and there is plenty of gun crime. host: "emily gets her gun" is the series in the washington times. type in her name on washingtontimes.com.

over six or seven months, you can see it on your screen. she joins us from blue ridge arsenal. you are hearing some noise in the background, the range is open. david in florida, you have been very patient. please go ahead. caller: how are you doing? host: good. caller: i'm a convicted felon and i own three guns. it was easy for me to purchase these guns. it was back in 2010. i'm all for some mlaws. -- some laws. for people that tried to protect their family, they stay at home. they are for protection. i know a lot of criminals and

home, they will do what they have to do to get what they want. they are not going to care if this person has this or that. they will come and ready to get the job done. everybody has the right to protect their home under any and all circumstances. host: what kind of felony was it? guest: i have a bunch of minor theft felonies. i have aggravated battery on my record. i am considered a violent felon. even pre-kid days when i was out of control. host: did you go through a gun shop? guest: no. host: did you buy that illegally? guest: yes. if i could have bought them

legally, i would have done that. if i ever did commit a crime, they would say, do you have that gun? that is more circumstantial evidence they would have against me. i got my guns from texas. it took me four days from the time that i met someone here in florida that had to go to mexico, bring the firearms to texas. host: think you for sharing your story. guest: i'm a little taken aback by that caller. the society agrees on limits and we agree that felons should not have guns. we agree that people that are mentally ill should not have guns.

people that have restraining orders against them should not have guns. it is part of public safety. this color illuminates what is going on. the president is calling for this universal background check. he says he is with a law-abiding life now, but most active criminals are going to buy their guns however they can. checks do nothing to stop them. there are no gun control laws -- it was proven that there is nothing that will reduce crime. i think that caller helps eliminate how those that we have decided should not own firearms are getting them anyway.

guest: good morning, pedro. >> we have been talking about background checks all morning. what is this we are looking at? >> this is the state form. the buyer is required to provide documentation. they fill out the state formed at the federal form. -- state form and federal form. as far as make, model, serial number. >> before we go to the computer, are you a fugitive from justice? are you addicted to marijuana? have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective? >> it is in there as far as people are required answer truthfully. if they enter falsely, we don't know. there is not a link between this and the check.

they can put no and we'd never know it. >> that is based on the honor system. >> they all are. >> can misinformation be checked? >> it could , and the background check but the mental health one does not show up. -- come up in the background check but the mental health one does not show up. put the information in the computer, in 15-25 seconds, we will get approval or delay. a delay might be anything from having a common name to having federal clearances. >> 30 seconds, is that standard? what is the longest?

>> three months. it took awhile to get clarified. >> is there a federal website that this gets attached to? >> this is state locally. virginia backgroudn checks. >> tell us the number of background checks. >> it averages 10-15 on certain days, the weekend as a little bit more. people are concerned about what is going on so it has been more recently. >> can someone apply again if they have been rejected? >> the police can inquire as to why they are dyed. -- denied.

sometimes there is just a mistaken they are approved after the fact. they are required to figure out on their own account why they were denied. >> how much? >> two dollars. >> per check. mark warner, thank you. guest: pedro, ask mr. warner if they ever refused to sell someone a gun even though they pass the background check? >> has the arsenal or you refused to sell someone a got even if they pass a background check? >> i have. i had someone that was delayed. she made me feel very uncomfortable. she made comments about her past life and having issues with health.

i decided to go ahead and refused the show even though she was delayed. she told me she had issues. >> anyone on staff can make that call? >> yes. guest: emily miller is also out at blue ridge arsenal. are women owners -- how common is it to be a woman gun owner? guest: it is the highest it has ever been. it women understand 911 is pretty far away. uc offers for the class is in training sessions. -- you see offers for classes

and training sessions. i have taught friend to shoot for the first time and several are getting guns for their own defense. i think you are seeing ownership on the rise because it is ok for women to own guns. -- is not just a man's world. i did try the laser, and my aim was amazingly better. host: from gallup, 45% of men own guns, 15% of women own guns. in the south, you are most likely and if you are married you are most likely. 37% of married people own guns.

jim, go ahead for emily miller. caller: comment is the way i see it, every american has a right to on a firearm. -- own a firearm. i see shotguns and pistols, but the semiautomatics i don't understand. how many citizens really need an ak? one shot, one kill in armed forces. for home protection, i would rather have a shotgun. the boom is enough protect yourself and your family. host: there are several issues in that caller. automatic weapons have been fully regulated since 1934.

they are not used in crimes and it's not an issue. automatic guns are the ones they use in war suppression. pull the trigger and it fires until you stop. modern firearms are semi-automatic. pull the trigger once and a bullet comes out. it fires as fast as you pull the trigger. there is a fear of what the administration calls the assault weapon and technically, it is what he originally referred to as an automatic weapon which is not used in crimes. they are extremely expensive and people can't afford them. rifles are rarely used in crimes. 11,000 people are killed by

firearms, and even diane feinstein says there are 32 killed with assault weapons. a standard semi-automatic rifle with certain cosmetic appearances. if it has a pistol grip, which means you can hold the gun underneath it. a collapsing stock. in order to shoot an ar, they adjusted to fit me. it is just like every other gone, there are a lot of misconceptions because of the language being used that there is no functional difference in any of the guns anyone is talking about. host: where did you grow up? did you grow up with firearms?

guest: i lived in baltimore and my father had a handgun and a carry permit. but it was not discussed with his daughters. i found it one day when i was looking under his carseat. i saw the revolver under there. newly knowing this gun world, i suggest people keep it locked up. and also a teacher people about the gun and said, this is a weapon of self-defense. i suggest teaching the basics. the first thing you are drilled is to keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire. keep it focused in a safe direction. i was a girl, and if i was a boy, i probably would have been more curious about that of all

over. that is how accidents happened. my father will kill me after this interview. i do think it is not something the hide from children. teach them the simple laws. if the kids start playing with their friends, they can keep their figure of of the trigger and a safe direction. -- finger off of the trigger and in a safe direction. host: if you were a resident of virginia, how would the figures change? guest: it would take me 10 minutes and two dollars. there is such a contrast because i live in d.c.

that is why these laws are so ridiculous. there is more crime in four months, so many of these laws are being passed in connecticut, new york, new jersey, delaware. it will have the exact same result, or you have to register every gun and the government knows where every gun is. it does not prevent, or prevent mass shootings. it just makes law-abiding people more vulnerable. across the potomac river, i would have had a gun in a few minutes and a background check that day. host: monica tweets --

do you know what cch stands for? guest: concealed carry, not sure the h. host: who was your trainer? guest: the class that is no longer required, oddly enough the governor of maryland is trying to enforce that even though the police say it doesn't work. i found a police list of instructors and found a woman in maryland. i felt a lot safer than going to some man's house. she had a real store front and a real business with a gun training and safety. host: bruce, go ahead with emily miller.

caller: one of the things i found most frustrating and profound from my perspective is that everybody is talking about how this issue can or cannot be addressed through legislation when i believe there are two things going on that you can't legislate. it is about truth. how you respond with emotions and how you respond with facts to support a position. the first part of emotions when you look at the killers out there. if you find out where they get their mindsetfrom, they found validation not from video games but from other people. people on the talk shows, they get them all worked up. maybe you go to a bar and both guys have restraining orders talking in violent language what

they need to do to their ex-girlfriend. the first thing we should do is point fingers and say shame. including the bully pulpit. i have heard callers talking about they are so concerned with the government coming after them. one caller said i'm under attack. that man is not that important at this is melodrama people are creating. people go out and want to kill and to feel more justified. i think that is being honest with yourself. the second part is being honest with the facts. host: let's get an answer from emily miller. guest: i am not sure who he is saying is giving these threats. obviously, if it is a criminal.

if a criminal says they're going to kill people -- they should call the police. host: some of our viewers say i'm worried about my right to bear arms. guest: i think that is totally legitimate. the president wants to ban guns with cosmetic and scary features, magazines with an arbitrary limit of 10 rounds. bills in missouri wanting to confiscate guns and a bill in washington state just got pulled that would allow law-enforcement to go into houses without violating your search and seizure rights. we sought in new york, -- saw in new york, and it is not an exaggeration to say this is the greatest assault on the second amendment that has ever happened in this country.

host: the noises that you hear coming from their range. the store is open and you hear some of the muffled shots. pedro is also out there. >> i'm with earl curtis, the owner of the gun shop. how did you end up owning the store? >> i wanted to get out of the i.t. business. i wanted something that was not technical. i always shotguns' so i decided to purchase it. >> what is it like being a store owner outside of washington d.c.? >> virginia is a gun friendly state. it is a great thing, actually. >> when you see proposals like the president's proposal, how does that affect you and your store? >> it makes law-abiding gun

citizens and gun owners are afraid. why should they take away their rights when they are not committing any crimes? sales are up and it is a good year anyway, but it will be a better year with the tragedy in newtown. >> in december, is that when they started to go up? >> yes. >> policy wise, what gets your interest most of all? >> a lot of things get my interest. we always do a background check. we have a question on the form about being mentally adjudicated. let's enforce those laws before we add new ones that won't work. >> the shop has been busy ever since you open. when people come in and take advantage of your store?

>> people that want to practice and basically practice with their handguns. it is a great sport and we teach education, safety, and awareness. people that our training, learning how to use handguns, and enjoying the sport. host: if you could as can what was the licensing process like for him to become a gun dealer, and what kind of security does he have that the store with all those guns? >> two questions, what kind of licensing did you have to go through and what do you do as far as security is concerned? >> i had to apply for a federal firearms license to own the store.

you have to show that you have a storefront. as far as security, we have several measures in both physical and as far as internet security to handle things around here. >> how regularly are you visited by atf? >> once a year. >> is that always consistent? >> it is. we get calls and things like that. we do our paperwork and we have also refused a lot of sales. >> the number one reason to refuse a sale? >> if guys feel uncomfortable. we have had customers ask out to do certain things the do certain things the people.